Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

dailymail.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 337 posts

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#251

Post by Talanes »

NullPrefix wrote: post #173
Talanes wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sure, you'd get pretty mad if every time you get robbed the police searches your vehicle but they don't need to break anything and you will get over it. Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned.

>Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned. Oh my sweet summer child. Calling the police is never about getting the belongings back. Calling the police is only about striking the perpetrator with violence, hoping that it would equalize the karma levels.

I don't disagree, but I'm not in a social stratum where calling the police is likely to even get me that.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#252

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #249
s5300 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police in my hometown consist of: * A dude who managed solid D grades throughout elementary and middle school despite a good & supportive family life & voluntarily chose to hold himself back a grade (8th grade) to "have a better chance of a football career to get into the NFL" * A dude who, for as long as I can literally remember, talked about how he was going to be some kickass marine. Talked about it all the ti…

Can you please make your substantive points without fulminating and name-calling? That's in the site guidelines. I realize you're talking about an important life-and-death issue/incident and that this material is highly activating. But internet snark and putdowns don't help—they just degrade things further and evoke worse from others. We could especially do without "the local painkiller addicted retirement community"…

[deleted]

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#253

Post by [deleted] »

Stupulous wrote: post #240
stjohnswarts wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another Trump presidency will be the end of democracy in the USA. He will install cronies at the top of the military leadership and do exactly what Erdoğan did in Turkey. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising. He will not depend on a bunch of untrained rabble to take over the Capitol next time.

Why didn't he just do that last time?

[deleted]

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#254

Post by ineedasername »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #242
RattleyCooper wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it this way, if a car is involved in a drive-by shooting the police can't get a warrant to search every single home that has the same year/make/model of car registered to with that address. For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional.

I can imagine a scenario where the warrant is for searches that you would not believe a human would naturally make on their own. I think SCOTUS would allow that. Scenario: Hello fellow criminals. Instead of point to point communication, we will make random posts/pages that have our combination of words on them. So if you want to read our communication, do a google search for the exact quote "purple antelope shoe couc…

naturally make

Though some of those bomb searches could easily be made by anyone curious about past bombing incidents. I've certainly had some curiousity-based searches about how the Unibomber did his work.

How do we end up defining naturally? That's a question the court would ask, and want to be able to provide a litmus test for going forward. I'm not sure how we do that here... Statistical probability at some specific threshold? It's a difficult question.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#255

Post by ineedasername »

6510 wrote: post #141
RattleyCooper wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it this way, if a car is involved in a drive-by shooting the police can't get a warrant to search every single home that has the same year/make/model of car registered to with that address. For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional.

If the car was used multiple shootings, the same phone was in that area and the phone was used to search for the victims name every time then we have everything we need but are unwilling to use it? We can probably figure out how to extract such data and cross reference it without making any of it available to random government employees. Say you take pictures of license plates, store the data some place safe and allo…

I'm not sure that putting the data into a metaphorical locked-box is sufficient. Someone with an interest in seeing the data will always have the keys. What you describe is not completely different from the purpose that FISA courts are supposed to serve, and I don't think those are a great success in protecting freedom and privacy according to the Constitution.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#256

Post by thegabez »

bduerst wrote: post #138
thegabez wrote: post #29

Brave and Brave search have been great.

IIRC, Brave Search is a skin for Bing and Google search engines. These fed orders went out to Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo.

Yes it does mix in google results if you want it to, but the search is still anonymous.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#257

Post by thegabez »

wolverine876 wrote: post #121
thegabez wrote: post #29

Brave and Brave search have been great.

How does Brave search compare to DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Qwant?

I've only used DDG and Brave search. I prefer Brave search probably because it mixes in Google results.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#258

Post by ineedasername »

mulmen wrote: post #224
Zababa wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Calling the police is only about striking the perpetrator with violence, hoping that it would equalize the karma levels. Or, you know, prevent them from doing crimes again.

Rehabilitation is clearly not a high priority in the US Justice system. See: outcomes. It's a vengeance based system.

vengeance

Unfortunately. But the criminal still can't commit crimes while in prison though. Vengeance just also means that solving the problem of any individual criminal is usually only temporary.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#259

Post by soperj »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #144
soperj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic considering, soon after he was arrested, tried for treason and other offenses, sentenced to death, and executed on 23 December 1953.

I don’t think ironic is the right word. Just fitting - he knew the system and the system lived up to his promise.

I'm using it in the greek tragedy sense, not the sarcasm sense.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#260

Post by ineedasername »

iammisc wrote: post #106
themitigating wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a source?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-... > The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension. In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be ill…

I think that's a grey area. Some members indicated they might have ruled against the administration if the deadline didn't moot the issue. Which the Court did, when the issue was no longer moot.

If I were placing blame here, I'd put at least part of it on the SC for not giving a real ruling on it in the first place. There was speculation about an extension in the air already at the time, and they could have cut that short.

Post reply on HN